Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Kooperationsskripts beim technologieunterstützten Lernen

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Lernen mit Bildungstechnologien

Part of the book series: Springer Reference Psychologie ((SRP))

  • 1578 Accesses

Zusammenfassung

Um positive Effekte auf den Wissens- und Kompetenzerwerb von Lernenden zu bewirken, bedarf technologiegestütztes Lernen häufig einer sorgfältigen instruktionalen Anleitung. In kooperativen Lernsettings kann diese über die Vorgabe von Kooperationsskripts realisiert werden, die den Lernenden innerhalb einer Kleingruppe unterschiedliche Lernaktivitäten und/oder Kooperationsrollen vorgeben und auf diese Weise die Zusammenarbeit strukturieren. Dieser Beitrag gibt einen Überblick über die empirische Forschung zu Kooperationsskripts für das technologiegestützte Lernen.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Literatur

  • Andriessen, J., Baker, M., & Suthers, D. D. (Hrsg.). (2003). Argumentation, computer support, and the educational context of confronting cognitions. In Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (S. 1–25). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asterhan, C. S., & Schwarz, B. B. (2010). Online moderation of synchronous e-argumentation. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(3), 259–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asterhan, C. S., Schwarz, B. B., & Gil, J. (2012). Small-group, computer-mediated argumentation in middle-school classrooms: The effects of gender and different types of online teacher guidance. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3), 375–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bär, D., Biemann, C., Gurevych, I., & Zesch, T. (2012). Ukp: Computing semantic textual similarity by combining multiple content similarity measures. Proceedings of the first joint conference on lexical and computational semantics-volume 1: Proceedings of the main conference and the shared task, and volume 2: Proceedings of the sixth international workshop on semantic evaluation (S. 435–440). Association for Computational Linguistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boekaerts, M. (1999). Self-regulated learning: Where we are today. International Journal of Educational Research, 31(6), 445–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bote-Lorenzo, M. L., Gómez-Sánchez, E., Vega-Gorgojo, G., Dimitriadis, Y. A., Asensio-Pérez, J. I., & Jorrín-Abellán, I. M. (2008). Gridcole: A tailorable grid service based system that supports scripted collaborative learning. Computers & Education, 51(1), 155–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H., & Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 49(4), 219–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Wever, B., Van Keer, H., Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2010). Structuring asynchronous discussion groups: Comparing scripting by assigning roles with regulation by cross-age peer tutors. Learning and Instruction, 20(5), 349–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Demetriadis, S., Egerter, T., Hanisch, F., & Fischer, F. (2011). Peer review-based scripted collaboration to support domain-specific and domain-general knowledge acquisition in computer science. Computer Science Education, 21(1), 29–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillenbourg, P. (2002). Over-scripting CSCL: The risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design. In P. A. Kirschner (Hrsg.), Three worlds of CSCL. Can we support CSCL (S. 61–91). Heerlen: Open Universiteit Nederland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillenbourg, P., & Hong, F. (2008). The mechanics of CSCL macro scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(1), 5–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillenbourg, P., & Jermann, P. (2007). Designing integrative scripts. In F. Fischer, I. Kollar, H. Mandl & J. Haake (Hrsg.), Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning (S. 275–301). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dillenbourg, P., & Tchounikine, P. (2007). Flexibility in macro-scripts for computer-supported collaborative learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(1), 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillenbourg, P., Järvelä, S., & Fischer, F. (2009). The evolution of research on computer-supported collaborative learning. In N. Balacheff, S. Ludvigsen, T. de Jong, A. Lazonder & S. Barnes (Hrsg.), Technology-enhanced learning (S. 3–19). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, F., Kollar, I., Stegmann, K., & Wecker, C. (2013). Toward a script theory of guidance in computer-supported collaborative learning. Educational Psychologist, 48(1), 56–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gielen, M., & De Wever, B. (2015). Structuring peer assessment: Comparing the impact of the degree of structure on peer feedback content. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 315–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haake, J. M., & Pfister, H. R. (2010). Scripting e distance-learning university course: Do students benefits from net-based scripted collaboration? International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(2), 191–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hadwin, A. F., Miller, M., & Webster, E. A. (2013). CSCL group planner (version 3.0). Victoria: University of Victoria.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hernández-Leo, D., Villasclaras-Fernández, E. D., Asensio-Pérez, J. I., Dimitriadis, Y., Jorrín-Abellán, I. M., Ruiz-Requies, I., & Rubia-Avi, B. (2006). COLLAGE: A collaborative learning design editor based on patterns. Journal of Educational Technology and Society, 9(1), 58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hovardas, T., Tsivitanidou, O. E., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2014). Peer versus expert feedback: An investigation of the quality of peer feedback among secondary school students. Computers & Education, 71, 133–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Järvelä, S., & Hadwin, A. (2013). New frontiers: Regulating learning in CSCL. Educational Psychologist, 48(1), 25–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Järvelä, S., Järvenoja, H., & Veermans, M. (2008). Understanding the dynamics of motivation in socially shared learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 47(2), 122–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Järvelä, S., Volet, S., & Järvenoja, H. (2010). Research on motivation in collaborative learning: Moving beyond the cognitive-situative divide and combining individual and social processes. Educational Psychologist, 45(1), 15–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Järvelä, S., Järvenoja, H., Malmberg, J., Isohätälä, J., & Sobocinski, M. (2016). How do types of interaction and phases of self-regulated learning set a stage for collaborative engagement? Learning and Instruction, 43, 39–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, A. (2007). Scripting collaborative learning processes: A cognitive perspective. In F. Fischer, I. Kollar, H. Mandl & J. M. Haake (Hrsg.), Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning: Cognitive, computational and educational perspectives (S. 14–37). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kobbe, L., Weinberger, A., Dillenbourg, P., Harrer, A., Hämäläinen, R., Häkkinen, P., & Fischer, F. (2007). Specifying computer-supported collaboration scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(2), 211–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kollar, I., & Fischer, F. (eingereicht). Methoden des Lernens. Erscheint. In D. Urhahne, M. Dresel & F. Fischer (Hrsg.), Psychologie für den Lehrerberuf. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Hesse, F. W. (2006). Collaboration scripts–a conceptual analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 18(2), 159–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Slotta, J. D. (2007). Internal and external scripts in computer-supported collaborative inquiry learning. Learning and Instruction, 17(6), 708–721.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kollar, I., Ufer, S., Reichersdorfer, E., Vogel, F., Fischer, F., & Reiss, K. (2014). Effects of collaboration scripts and heuristic worked examples on the acquisition of mathematical argumentation skills of teacher students with different levels of prior achievement. Learning and Instruction, 32, 22–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kollar, I., Wecker, C., & Fischer, F. (2018). Scaffolding and scripting (computer-supported) collaborative learning. In F. Fischer, C. Hmelo-Silver, S. Goldman & P. Reinmann (Hrsg.), International handbook of the learning sciences. New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A., & Jochems, W. (2003). Identifying the pitfalls for social interaction in computer-supported collaborative learning environments: A review of the research. Computers in Human Behavior, 19(3), 335–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lai, M., & Law, N. (2006). Peer scaffolding of knowledge building through collaborative groups with differential learning experiences. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 35(2), 123–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laru, J., Järvelä, S., & Clariana, R. B. (2012). Supporting collaborative inquiry during a biology field trip with mobile peer-to-peer tools for learning: A case study with K-12 learners. Interactive Learning Environments, 20(2), 103–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miao, Y., & Koper, R. (2007). An efficient and flexible technical approach to develop and deliver online peer assessment. In C. A. Chinn, G. Erkens & S. Puntambekar (Hrsg.), Proceedings of the 7th computer supported collaborative learning (CSCL 2007) conference ‚Mice, Minds, and Society‘, July (S. 502–511). New Jersey: International Society of the Learning Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, M., & Hadwin, A. (2015). Scripting and awareness tools for regulating collaborative learning: Changing the landscape of support in CSCL. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 573–588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mu, J., Stegmann, K., Mayfield, E., Rosé, C., & Fischer, F. (2012). The ACODEA framework: Developing segmentation and classification schemes for fully automatic analysis of online discussions. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 7(2), 285–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noroozi, O., Weinberger, A., Biemans, H. J., Mulder, M., & Chizari, M. (2012). Argumentation-based computer supported collaborative learning (ABCSCL): A synthesis of 15 years of research. Educational Research Review, 7(2), 79–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noroozi, O., Teasley, S. D., Biemans, H. J., Weinberger, A., & Mulder, M. (2013). Facilitating learning in multidisciplinary groups with transactive CSCL scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 8(2), 189–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noroozi, O., Kirschner, P. A., Biemans, H. J., & Mulder, M. (2017). Promoting argumentation competence: Extending from first- to second-order scaffolding through adaptive fading. Educational Psychology Review, 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pai, H. H., Sears, D. A., & Maeda, Y. (2015). Effects of small-group learning on transfer: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 27(1), 79–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patchan, M. M., & Schunn, C. D. (2015). Understanding the benefits of providing peer feedback: How students respond to peers’ texts of varying quality. Instructional Science, 43(5), 591–614.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pea, R. (2004). The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical concepts for learning, education, and human activity. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 423–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perna, L. W., Ruby, A., Boruch, F. R., Wang, N., Scull, J., Seher, A., & Evans, C. (2014). Moving through MOOCs: Understanding the progression of users in massive open online courses. Educational Researcher, 43(9), 421–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Puntambekar, S., & Hübscher, R. (2005). Tools for scaffolding students in a complex learning environment: What have we gained and what have we missed? Educational Psychologist, 40(1), 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renkl, A., & Atkinson, R. K. (2003). Structuring the transition from example study to problem solving in cognitive skill acquisition: A cognitive load perspective. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 15–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ronen, M., Kohen-Vacs, D., & Raz-Fogel, N. (2006). Adopt & adapt: Structuring, sharing and reusing asynchronous collaborative pedagogy. In ICLS ’06: Proceedings of the 7th international conference on learning sciences (S. 599–605). Bloomington: International Society of the Learning Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rummel, N., & Spada, H. (2005). Learning to collaborate: An instructional approach to promoting collaborative problem-solving in computer-mediated settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(2), 201–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rummel, N., Mullins, D., & Spada, H. (2012). Scripted collaborative learning with the cognitive tutor algebra. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 7(2), 307–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schank, R. C. (1999). Dynamic memory revisited. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Seidel, N. (2013). Peer Assessment und Peer Annotation mit Hilfe eines videobasierten CSCL-Scripts. DeLFI 2013–Die 11. e-Learning Fachtagung Informatik der Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V., 83–94. Bonn: gesellschaft für informatik.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stegmann, K., Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2007). Facilitating argumentative knowledge construction with computer-supported collaboration scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(4), 421–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stegmann, K., Weinberger, C., Weinberger, A., & Fischer,F. (2012). Collaborative argumentation and cognitive elaboration in a computer-supported collaborative learining environment. Instructional Science, 40(2), 297–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strijbos, J. W. (2011). Assessment of (computer-supported) collaborative learning. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 4(1), 59–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strijbos, J. W., & De Laat, M. F. (2010). Developing the role concept for computer-supported collaborative learning: An explorative synthesis. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(4), 495–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strijbos, J. W., & Sluijsmans, D. (2010). Unravelling peer assessment: Methodological, functional, and conceptual developments. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 265–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teasley, S. D. (1997). Talking about reasoning: How important is the peer in peer collaboration? In L. Resnick, R. Säljö, C. Pontecorvo & B. Burge (Hrsg.), Discourse, tools and reasoning (S. 361–384). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsovaltzi, D., Puhl, T., Judele, R., & Weinberger, A. (2014). Group awareness support and argumentation scripts for individual preparation of arguments in Facebook. Computers & Education, 76, 108–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vogel, F., Wecker, C., Kollar, I., & Fischer, F. (2017). Socio-cognitive scaffolding with computer-supported collaboration scripts: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 29(3), 477–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, E., Rummel, N., & Koedinger, K. R. (2011). Designing automated adaptive support to improve student helping behaviors in a peer tutoring activity. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6, 279–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, X., Kollar, I., & Stegmann, K. (2017). Adaptable scripting to foster regulation processes and skills in computer-supported collaborative learning. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 12, 153–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webb, N. M. (1989). Peer interaction and learning in small groups. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 21–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wecker, C., & Fischer, F. (2011). From guided to self-regulated performance of domain-general skills: The role of peer monitoring during the fading of instructional scripts. Learning and Instruction, 21(6), 746–756.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wecker, C., & Fischer, F. (2014). Lernen in Gruppen. In T. Seidel & A. Krapp (Hrsg.), Pädagogische Psychologie (S. 277–296). Weinheim: Beltz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weimer, M., Gurevych, I., & Mühlhäuser, M. (2007, June). Automatically assessing the post quality in online discussions on software. Proceedings of the 45th annual meeting of the ACL on interactive poster and demonstration sessions (S. 125–128). Stroudsburg: Association for Computational Linguistics.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., & Fischer, F. (2010). Learning to argue online: Scripted groups surpass individuals (unscripted groups do not). Computers in Human Behavior, 26(4), 506–515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B., & Schunk, D. H. (Hrsg.). (2011). Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance. New York: Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Lehrstuhl für Psychologie m.b.B.d. Pädagogischen Psychologie, Universität Augsburg, Augsburg, Deutschland

    Katharina Kiemer, Christina Wekerle & Ingo Kollar

Authors
  1. Katharina Kiemer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christina Wekerle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ingo Kollar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Katharina Kiemer .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Universität des Saarlandes, Saarbrücken, Germany

    Helmut Niegemann

  2. Lehrstuhl für Bildungstechnologie, Universität des Saarlandes, Saarbrücken, Saarland, Germany

    Armin Weinberger

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer-Verlag GmbH Deutschland, ein Teil von Springer Nature

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Kiemer, K., Wekerle, C., Kollar, I. (2018). Kooperationsskripts beim technologieunterstützten Lernen. In: Niegemann, H., Weinberger, A. (eds) Lernen mit Bildungstechnologien. Springer Reference Psychologie . Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-54373-3_29-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-54373-3_29-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-54373-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-54373-3

  • eBook Packages: Springer Referenz Psychologie

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation